Preparations for the 10th Anniversary Concert and Memorial Service

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Ahh but, she is our Queen, who has served this country well over a long period of time, without scandal, histrionics or hiccup!

There are people who wouldn't consider that a reason to spend taxpayer money on an event. There are people who think the Queen Mother's funeral should have been a totally private event that didn't involve the armed services, the police, or TV broadcasting. It just depends on how much support you have for the person involved or even for the monarchy itself.

You don't think the taxpayer should contribute to this event; even though it's by no means certain that the taxpayer will be contributing, there are British citizens out there who think it's perfectly appropriate for it to happen. As other people have already pointed out, it depends a lot on one's perception of the person involved - since we have a whole range of people here, from those for whom Diana could never do a thing wrong to those who would like to rewrite British history to remove her altogether, we're not going to get any agreement on this subject. You've made your position clear, other people have made theirs clear; how much more remains to be usefully said on the subject of the concert and the British taxpayer?

[corazon]

all the royal event they cost money, weddings, funerals, partys etc.
if tomorrow william marry with a great party we also would cost money to us.
is very complicated, but as I day before, the diana concert will be a day for enjoy and said thanks for her life.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

There are people who wouldn't consider that a reason to spend taxpayer money on an event. There are people who think the Queen Mother's funeral should have been a totally private event that didn't involve the armed services, the police, or TV broadcasting. It just depends on how much support you have for the person involved or even for the monarchy itself.

The Queen and the Queen Mother were both long standing members of the Royal Family, it was IMO most appropriate that The Queen was able to honour her mother with the use of her armed services etc, as it was her right to honour Diana in the same way.

The difference here is that Diana was no longer a HRH, I can't see most taxpayers being happy about contributing to the cost of a concert for anyone who is/was a celebrity, how about a charity event for John Lennon or George Harrison?
I just think it is a little 'rich' the way those not from the UK and therefore not taxpayers, inform us that if needs be, we should pay!

If the government is sensible, the organisers will have to pay VAT, Tax and for security, sadly I believe it will all be tax exempt, bill free, in an effort to win votes!

[corazon]

diana don't was HRH for long time, she just is the mother of the future king, somebody know when the new ticket will be free to buy?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by corazon

if tomorrow william marry with a great party we also would cost money to us.

That is the point though, it doesn't cost you anything!

[Elspeth]

It doesn't matter whether it costs her anything. She has as much right as anyone else to express an opinion. I understand that you disagree with the opinion that the Queen and the Queen Mother shouldn't cost the taxpayer any money for events either, but those opinions are out there.

We know it's your opinion that the British taxpayer shouldn't be asked to contribute anything towards this concert. Other people, including British citizens, disagree with you. Others are indifferent. Non-British citizens also have a range of opinions. We're going round in circles here.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It doesn't matter whether it costs her anything. She has as much right as anyone else to express an opinion. I understand that you disagree with the opinion that the Queen and the Queen Mother shouldn't cost the taxpayer any money for events either, but those opinions are out there.

Everyone has the right to give their opinion, as long as they are not, in theory, spending my money, which I feel very attached to!
You misunderstood my post, I said it was the Queens right to use her armed services, police officers etc as she wished, whether it was honouring her mother or Diana. I felt the Party at the Palace was also a waste of money.

State occasions, funerals and weddings are for every member of the UK, commonwealth countries and visitors who wish to join in and that is the big difference!

[ysbel]

I think the charitable event (concert) is getting confused with the royal event (memorial service).

Sure, there will be a cost to the taxpayer for the memorial service but, I can't imagine it to be a great amount and I think people would be hard pressed to deny William and Harry a small, tasteful, inexpensive memorial service to honor their late mother.

The Anglican church already conducts so many services, it can just customize an existing service to contain the memorial liturgy. If memorial services are what I've seen, its the cost of a couple of choirs and some extra prayers and maybe some extra detail of security but this doesn't break the bank by any stretch of the imagination.

The concert is going to be the expensive event but it is not a royal event, its a charity event that William and Harry are hosting. Here, I agree with skydragon, they need to control costs, but I think so for different reasons. If the event is run well, it will make money and all the entities that put money forth to run the concert will get their money back with what's left over going to charity.

The reason I think its so important for this event to be run well and not to cost money is that Diana's name has already been associated with some questionable charitable enterprises and her sons don't need another badly run event associated with her name. The charity fund that her family runs has been beset by controversy and rumours of bad management. Her memorials at Althorpe and the fountain have also been over ambitious and poorly managed.

Diana's name doesn't need to be associated with yet another well-meant endeavour that ends up in a fiasco. skydragon brings up a good point about tax exemption. In the U.S., all charity events are tax-exempt, I believe, and so this one if held in the U.S. would be exempt from taxes no matter who was associated with it. I don't know what the laws are in Britain.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

The concert is going to be the expensive event but it is not a royal event, its a charity event that William and Harry are hosting. Here, I agree with skydragon, they need to control costs, but I think so for different reasons. If the event is run well, it will make money and all the entities that put money forth to run the concert will get their money back with what's left over going to charity.

The reason I think its so important for this event to be run well and not to cost money is that Diana's name has already been associated with some questionable charitable enterprises and her sons don't need another badly run event associated with her name. The charity fund that her family runs has been beset by controversy and rumours of bad management. Her memorials at Althorpe and the fountain have also been over ambitious and poorly managed.

Diana's name doesn't need to be associated with yet another well-meant endeavour that ends up in a fiasco. skydragon brings up a good point about tax exemption. In the U.S., all charity events are tax-exempt, I believe, and so this one if held in the U.S. would be exempt from taxes no matter who was associated with it. I don't know what the laws are in Britain.

I think the memorial service is a good idea and although the idea of it bringing all sides together, seems to be failing, (with comments about Camilla going and about Charlie Spencer being allowed in), I think it will in the end bring a healing for the different family members, which to me is what should be important.

The fountain is fenced off, most of the time and it does look like a drainage ditch, it costs a fortune to maintain, why not a beautiful statue of Diana, where people can go, if they choose? Where in years to come her fans can take their children and grandchildren. Who in 10-20 years time will remember this concert, except her sons and a few old folk?

No, unless the chancellor agrees to forget the VAT, it will not be tax free, he gave Live 8 a £2 million refund of Tax.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Everyone has the right to give their opinion, as long as they are not, in theory, spending my money, which I feel very attached to!

They have a right to give their opinion even then. Just take comfort in the fact that they're spending your money in theory only.

[sirhon11234]

Who in 10-20 years time will remember this concert, except her sons and a few old folk?

All of her fans will SkyDragon.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

All of her fans will SkyDragon.

Some might, but, many will have their own lives to lead, with their own problems. I remember reading about the 500's+ who vowed to meet every year at KP, it was something like 15 this year.

[Elspeth]

Commemorative events and memorials such as statues aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I think the Diana fountain was a genuine attempt to make a memorial that was more interactive and relevant to children than a conventional statue (of course, we do have that lovely statue of Diana and Dodi, courtesy of Mohamed Fayed... ); it's just a shame that the execution didn't match up to the concept. There are water features like that all over the place which work perfectly well. Goodness knows why they had to go and choose such a pig's ear in this particular case. Considering what global warming is doing to summers over there, a working fountain/paddling pool would have been a real boon.

[sirhon11234]

There were alot of people at kp this year more than 15. Anyway has anyone gotten any tickets to go to the concert.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

They have a right to give their opinion even then. Just take comfort in the fact that they're spending your money in theory only.

Not to mention that the theoretical funds will theoretically revolve back into the British economy.

Some might, but, many will have their own lives to lead, with their own problems. I remember reading about the 500's+ who vowed to meet every year at KP, it was something like 15 this year.

Which is not the same as 'not remembering'. And with this, we are back to presupposing what a bunch of people we don't know and will never meet will be thinking many years from now, which is just pointless.

It's impossible to predict how many people will remember an event 10-20 years from now, and equally impossible to say that many won't. For example, there are many who clearly remember George Harrison's Concert for Bangladesh, and that was over 30 years ago.